The infringement that never has to say “likelihood of confusion”

Professor Eric Goldman writes about the latest unfortunate development in the extension of “initial interest confusion,” that “infringement” of the Lanham Act that continues the trend eviscerating the doctrine of nominative fair use. Initial interest confusion, which means that no real damages were suffered by the trademark holder, was cooked up mainly by Professor McCarthy (see below regarding “the treatise author as collosus”) and adopted all too eagerly by courts eager to get desired results against “bad guys.” The effect is to provide a catchall for courts eager to utilize the more draconian aspects of the Lanham Act to punish behavior that has nothing to do with trademark infringement, slanting the already unfortunate abuse of IP litigation profoundly against smaller defendants. Are he and a few others of us tilting at windmills? If you care about trademarks at all, read his whole article. (Note: We have clients involved in unrelated litigation involving one of the parties in the case Eric writes about.)

Check out Clouthub – GetClouthub.com/Ron

The Title, the Blog and the Blogger

The question of whether consumers are likely to be confused is the signal inquiry that determines if a trademark infringement claim is valid. I write here about trademark law, copyright law, brands, free speech (mostly as it relates to the Internet) and legal issues related to blogging. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a blog.

READ THIS FIRST OR ELSE

THIS BLOG IS ONLY A BLOG, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS IN PART AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY RONALD D. COLEMAN, AN ATTORNEY ADMITTED IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ONLY, BUT HE IS NOT YOUR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT HIS CLIENT CLIENT. JUST WALK BESIDE HIM AND BE HIS FRIEND.